Microsoft compares Halo to Call of Duty

Franchise director Frank O'Connor says Halo built with balance in mind, Call of Duty favors players with the "bigger gun."

Gamers have long drawn comparisons between chart-topping shooter franchises Halo and Call of Duty, but now Microsoft has commented on the similarities. Speaking to GameSpot, Halo franchise development director Frank O'Connor said such comparisons are "reasonable," given Halo 4's new loadout system. Ultimately, though, he said Halo is different than Call of Duty because it does not favor the player with the "bigger gun."

"Halo 4's loadout system frequently, and sort of appropriately, gets compared to other FPS games, including Call of Duty and others. And definitely, in terms of how much effect the progression system has on your player, that's a reasonable sort of comparison," O'Connor said.

"I think the real difference is that Halo is built on a notion of really balanced gameplay. I love Black Ops, for example, and in Black Ops I'm always trying to get to a weapon; my eyes are always on that prize. And it will be a very, very powerful weapon," O'Connor added. "Halo is really more about survival encounters, rather than getting the drop on someone or winning through having a bigger gun. And also using the things you've learned on the battlefield. So while you are able to unlock weapons and abilities that do modify your baseline traits [in Halo 4], they're, bluntly, not as powerful and not as game changing. They're about subtly and their about style ultimately."

Players will be able to decide for themselves this November. Halo 4 arrives on November 6 exclusively for the Xbox 360, with Call of Duty: Black Ops II releasing a week later for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC on November 13. A Wii U version is in the works, but it does not yet have a release date.

How do they compare, other than the fact that they're both shooters? CoD is basically a game of hide and seek with guns. TAG! You're out! 2-5 bullet death. There's no skill involved. Then there's Halo. If a lesser skilled player starts shooting you in the back, you still have the opportunity to outrun and return or turn around and best them.

Ok, bigger guns are stronger in COD, an MG,beats a pistol, but getting kills in COD is mostly about who sees who first, or camping, because of the low health, lack of a proper radar, accurate scoped powerfull guns etc. most encounters are over in a flash.

Halo was always built to prevent cheap kills like that, many encounters in halo can turn into messy, fun and exciting dogfights. In halo you don't take an enemy down by doing a quick zoom and releasing a few bullets, or by doing a quick spray at close range. No, depending on the weapon you have to keep your reticule firmly on the enemy for up to a 3 full seconds. Halo takes true skill and has an extensive learning curve, while call of duty takes luck, gadgets and perks and any noob can get the hang of it in half an hour.

Reading how Halo is getting influenced by COD is not making me happy. Luckily, from the looks of it they've kept it to a minimun.

both are equally shitty fps games in my eyes any fps game that has this sit and hide and regen health bs I ignore. What happen to the days of health packs and actual picking your battles and conserving ones health to get to end of leave???

I tell you where they went they went all Sit and hide and regen health path for the lil kiddies that dont know how to think other then run in and gun and ahide then regen and do it agian

CoD is soo played out. They should have killed it after Modern Warfare 2. Halo 3 was good Halo 1 was the best and Halo Reach sucked. Halo 4 i probably wont be buying that nor will i buy CoD Black ops 2.

I dont think they are anything alike other than being FPS. As far as balance goes yeah that went out the window in Halo 3. The first Halo had by far the most balanced multiplayer, its a damn shame they didnt bring that back with the anniversary edition.

I enjoy both of those franchises, but I enjoy them actually more for their single player, instead of their multiplayer. I know they're both extremely popular for their multiplayer, but Ive really loved the campaigns in each, not to mention the coop that's been implemented lately.

The reason I don't play Halo is because I can't stand doing that stupid straff dance of jumping and dodging while emptying two clips of ammo till one of us drops 1st. There's no skill in that. But now MW3 is getting that stupid with the introduction of vests. Wearing a vest protects you from a headshot...really?! At least Halo is what it is because its an unrealistic sci-fi shooter, there is no excuse for CoD being that silly. Vests, Tubes and Sit-rep pro ruined CoD IMO

@tsunami2311 have to disagree, in oldskool shooters with a health bar you can only survive a limited number of encounters no matter how high your skill is, because you always get a little damage (unless you camp and constantly shoot people in the back). So it's just a matter of time before your health runs out. And if your health is low you just know, next enemy is gonna be last.

In games like halo, if you got a good strategy and rely on your skill you can continue winning every encounter. your killstreak doesn't has to end because you've accumulated some minor damage here and there.

@boirascal90 I'm sure they are out there. CoD has a huge following and so does Halo. There is probably a Venn Diagram that could be made to illustrate how many like both. I played MW2 last and am pretty happy to never go back to the CoD universe, but Halo still holds my attention.

@steelmouth MS should just hold it off a bit. I'm pretty sure Halo fans would still buy Halo no matter what but the shooter game fans might just pick up COD and wait till christmas or something for Halo

@DeFiLeDTitan Having guns and explosives in an FPS makes sense. The 1 hit shotgun is definitely one of the worse parts of Halo but it doesn't mean it's not generally balanced elsewhere and the shotgun does at least suffer from range helping it not be the perfect gun for every situation, some guns (like a Battle Rifle) will outpace the shotgun with ease so long as you position yourself and everyone starts with grenades so if someone wants to camp a corner with a shotgun you can flush them out anyway. Also if you consider anyone can get these weapons rather than just if you're already winning you can spawn with it then that makes a difference too. COD doesn't necessarily give you this sort of balanced play and counters. Also if you're saying its unbalanced just because there are lots of high powered weapons I'd have thought that was better than just 1 or 2 so that those that possess those weapons are next to definitely on a huge advantage.

gameplay wise Halo was just designed a bit better in my opinion, depends on your taste of games but for me it's got a better balance to the weapons and I don't really care if COD is more realistic since I'm playing a game anyway so I just want good gameplay.

@ZeW0lf That is a dumb statement. COD is over rated because they barely change anything each game and the mechanics themselves aren't on par with better shooters (counter strike, Halo, Half-life etc.) and the only defining quality is usually the average feature of perks or other similar elements although that is basically what counter strike does in letting you buy better gear.

Halo on the other hand I don't know how you can call it over rated. It generally, as compared to other games in the FPS genre, has good single player campaigns, unique weapons, good features, more colourful and unique visuals, nice open environments, very good vehicle combat, somewhat balanced weaponry (not fully balanced but better than most games), good AI and generally good graphics for the time each one was released. They tend to lack a little environmental reaction and characterisation but I can't name many other FPS that beat it on gameplay and story wise it's one of the better ones too. Halo defined itself as the standard for FPS controls, it sold phenomenally from the outset with near no marketing and it generally does critically well. I am not saying they are perfect as they have there issues but every FPS does. Calling it over rated is a bit sad though as most of the elements of the games are pulled off far better than most other titles in the genre.

@Gravity_Slave I hate to break it to you but that strifin, dancing, jumping and dodging is actually a very difficult thing to master in Halo. while in CoD you often go up against opponents with different weapons than you, in halo you almost always fight some one who has an AR with an AR or end up in BR or DMR battles. If all you could do was stand there and shoot, that would suck. also if you had to crouch and hide all the time to win duels, that would suck as well. I'm excellent with the DMR so when i lose battles its cause my opponent can out strife and out pace me, which requires skill.

@fourclawrider@tsunami2311 I prefer the halo one health, or something like far cry 2. where in halo one it's a mix of both, and I like far cry 2 how you had to take time to pull out a piece of shrapnel or whatever to gain health back, it takes time and you can't shoot while doing it and really it isn't any less realistic than picking up some magical health pack. I think BF3 on harcore has a good health system you won;t regen health ever unless of course someone throws down a medic pack, which makes a group of snipers easier to take out. CoD hardcore is the same but bullet damage does way more

@Sigil-otaku@DeFiLeDTitan I used to pwn ppl with a plasma pistol and a magnum in Halo2. Charge shot and as soon as it hits, magnum to the face one shot kill. There are ways around having the best weapons in Halo. Though running around with the plasma pistol charged isn't very incognito. I don't like the killstreaks in COD. Let's further reward the person/s that are already dominating...

@Sigil-otaku@ZeW0lf huh, you sound exactly like someone who would defend cod or battlefield. You're clearly biased towards Halo, because you like it better. I like them both about the same, for different reasons. Halo is fun because they have vehicles and forge. I like cod because the fighting is more realistic and some of the game modes are cooler

@UnbornCorpser@MajorasMask00@DeFiLeDTitan@ZeW0lf Are you sure about that? Something about the fact that standard Halo games sell anywhere from 6 million to 12 million yet Halo wars only sold 2 million (still a decent number mind you) does suggest that at least two thirds of the Halo audience didn't just jump out and buy that Halo title, and even the third that did will have contained some who simply did want that title and knew it was something they'd possibly like.

I don't follow the masses either, I'm not particularly a fan of COD, I think Half-life is over rated (the story is essentially aliens come through a portal, fight them, then fight the military then some unexplained crap with g-man that won't make any sense and probably has little reason to be there hence the massive delays in Half-life 3 since they can't do justice to what fans are hoping for) and I'm not a fan of Uncharted nor any big title just for the sake of it but just being popular doesn't mean a game is bad or over rated. I am a big fan of RPG's and JRPG's which aren't as popular at the moment but even then I make up my own mind on what I like such as not taking to demons souls so much because I found it a bit repetitive but I still respect the game for what it does. You don't have to like everything about a game to respect if it does something right like Half-life which I stated I wasn't a huge fan of was still a great game for the time.

Popularity doesn't make a game good but it doesn't make them bad either, over rated more or less suggests they aren't as good as people think and popularity alone doesn't indicate quality. Halo is popular but as the example above showed it's fans don't just buy any game with the word Halo on it and even if they did have you not considered they simply like that game enough to keep buying new titles? COD on the other hand yeah I sort of see where you're coming from with various people saying different ones suck and others are great but in the end it's up to them if they buy it, they should just try the alternatives more often.

@DeFiLeDTitan@Sigil-otaku@ZeW0lfBecause your opinion has had no logical reasoning or valid arguments. You haven't explained why it's not over rated, you simply said you liked it and why you liked it but that's not a real reason why it shouldn't be seen as over rated in the eyes of others. My opinion isn't more than yours, I'm just arguing for mine because I believe it correct.

@Sigil-otaku@ZeW0lf yeah genius, you've completely understood everything I said. You think cod is overrated, that doesn't mean it is. You think the technical shit is better in halo. You think cod has no stand out features. So why does your opinion mean more than mine? If you actually read my whole comment, you would have noticed that I wasn't putting halo down. I was defending cod from someone who IS clearly biased towards Halo. The definition of bias: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

@Sigil-otaku@MajorasMask00@DeFiLeDTitan@ZeW0lf As far as I'm aware it is over-rated. Anytime a Halo game comes out (The same with COD) nobody gives a two horse shit to even check out the details or if they do & don't like it they'll still get it. If any game has Halo or COD in it it's gonna sell like wild fire JUST because of their Franchise's history that's what makes them over-rated.

Personally I couldn't care less about either Halo or COD (Never have & Never will I don't & won't follow the blind masses) but I what I do care about is how stupid people can be and just accepting any game that comes from a popular franchise.

Exp - From what I keep hearing everywhere MW3 sucked monkey balls but people are still playing it or buying it. That's just sad that these are the people shaping our gaming community. And people wonder why our gaming company's are over flooded with COD knock-offs (To attract the masses).

@MajorasMask00@DeFiLeDTitan@ZeW0lfWell that's cool by me, I don't mind if people like COD since I'm sure it's a pretty fine set of games too. I just find it odd when people call Halo over rated and I try and compare it to other FPS and feel it's comparable to the better ones.

@DeFiLeDTitan@ZeW0lf Why would I defend COD when I clearly say in that very comment that COD had no stand out features and it's gameplay wasn't comparable to others in the genre? It's simple comparison, if a game doesn't have it's own feel and combat style (i.e. halo has a lot more vehicular combat and a larger focus on balanced weaponry than most others whereas COD has nothing) then it has to stand out some other way. COD doesn't and Battlefield I won't comment on since I haven't really played it.

So by your 'logic' no one is ever allowed to have a favourite of two things or they are biased? That's not biased, that is just having an opinion and I stated clearly why COD didn't stand out compared to the rest of the genre so was over rated whereas Halo did stand out as it was more colourful, more story focused, more visually iconic etc. Put a modern warfare man next to a Battlefield man and they look the same, put out master chief or samus aran and you know who they are. It's simple, COD is derivative whereas Halo isn't and my point was merely to argue that Halo is well made in a lot of ways you judge a game from a critical or mechanical stand point whereas COD isn't. You may like COD but that doesn't mean it's not over rated, I may like Halo and that doesn't mean it's not over rated either but my opinion is simply that it's not and others are just hating since it's popular and they refuse to appreciate what it does right if they don't like the it themselves (similar to how a car could be a very good car but if it's a sports car and I'm more of a luxury car kind of guy I should still be able to appreciate it).